Ms Z N Clarkson-Palomares v The Secretary of State for Justice: 1400822/2019 and 1401665/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Citation | 1400822/2019 and 1401665/2020 |
| Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Published date | 19 January 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
Case Nos: 1400822/2019
1401665/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms. Z N Clarkson-Palomares
Respondent: The Secretary of State for Justice
Heard at: Reading Employment Tribunal (via CVP)
On: 7th- 10th, 13th & 14th and 16th September 2021
(17th, 20th and 29th September 2021 and 17th
November 2021 in Chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Eeley
Mrs. A Brown
Mr. D Palmer
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Mr. J Allsop, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that:
1. The name of the respondent to claim number 1401665/2020 is amended, by
consent, to the Secretary of State for Justice.
2. The claimant’s complaints that the respondent breached its duty to make
reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act
2010 in relation to:
Case Nos: 1400822/2019
1401665/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
2
(a) a failure to provide voice recognition software from September 2016
until 6th December 2018; and
(b) a failure to provide training in relation to proper use of the voice
recognition software from September 2016 until May 2019;
are well founded and are upheld.
3. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion under section 123(1)(b) of the
Equality Act 2010 on the ‘just and equitable’ basis to permit the claimant to
pursue her out of time claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments in
relation to provision of voice recognition software and training in the use of the
said software (as at paragraph 2 above). The Tribunal has not extended the
limitation period on the just and equitable basis in relation to the reasonable
adjustments claim in respect of provision of a proofreader.
4. The remainder of the claimant’s complaints that the respondent breached its
duty to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the
Equality Act 2010 fail and are dismissed.
5. The claimant’s complaint that the respondent indirectly discriminated against
her contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the
requirement to provide Written Statements (in the SSCS) without the use of
voice recognition software is well founded and upheld in relation to the period
from September 2016 to 5th December 2018 only. This aspect of the claim
was presented to the Tribunal within the relevant limitation period.
6. The remainder of the claimant’s complaints of indirect discrimination contrary
to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 fail and are dismissed.
7. The claimant’s complaints of section 15 discrimination “because of something
arising in consequence of disability” and section 26 disability related
harassment fail and are dismissed.
REASONS
Background
1. The claimant is a fee paid judge of the First Tier Tribunal. She issued three
sets of proceedings pursuant to claim numbers 1400822/19 (“The
1st proceedings”),1401665/2020 (“The 2nd proceedings”) and 1404491/2020
(“The 3rd proceedings”). The 3rd proceedings were dismissed upon
withdrawal in advance of the final merits hearing. During the hearing the
name of the respondent in the 2nd proceedings was amended by consent so
that the respondent to both sets of proceedings is now properly recorded as
the Secretary of State for Justice.
Case Nos: 1400822/2019
1401665/2020
10.5 Reserved judgment with reasons – rule 62 March 2017
3
2. The claimant’s claims consist of a variety of complaints of disability
discrimination including allegations of breaches of the duty to make
reasonable adjustments; allegations of harassment (section 26),
discrimination because of something arising from disability (section 15) and
indirect discrimination (section 19). At the outset of the final hearing both
parties agreed that the issues to be determined by the Tribunal were
accurately set out in the agreed list of issues at page 103A of the bundle of
documents. This list is reproduced at “Annex 1” to these written reasons. In
addition to the agreed list of issues, the respondent raised arguments of
judicial proceedings immunity in relation to some aspects of the claimant’s
claims.
3. The claimant’s case is about her time sitting as a fee paid judge in the First
Tier Tribunal, firstly in the Social Security and Child Support Chamber
(hereafter referred to as “SSCS”) and, latterly, in the Immigration and
Asylum Chamber (hereafter referred to as “IAC”). The claimant is dyslexic
and this impacts upon various facets of her everyday working life. In
essence, the claimant asserts that she required several reasonable
adjustments in order to be able to carry out her judicial function effectively
and in a timely manner. She complains that the adjustments were not made,
either timeously or, in some cases, at all. She asserts that this had a number
of knock-on effects which adversely impacted upon her ability to sit as a fee
paid judge and comply with the requirements of that role. She claims that,
as a consequence, her performance was unjustly criticised and she was
unfairly threatened with the judicial equivalent of disciplinary sanctions. The
respondent accepts that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of
the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”) and that it knew she was so disabled at
all material times. However, it denies all the claimant’s claims of
discrimination. It asserts that adequate steps were taken for her to be able
to carry out her judicial functions appropriately and that it did not act in a
discriminatory manner when it appraised her performance or responded to
complaints by members of the public about the claimant’s decisions.
Further, the respondent asserts that certain aspects of the claimant’s claims
are governed by the principle of judicial proceedings immunity (“JPI”) such
that the Employment Tribunal does not have the power to find it liable for
breaches of EA 2010 which fall within the scope of JPI.
4. The tribunal hearing dealt with issues of liability only, leaving any remedy
issues to be determined at a further hearing, as required.
5. The Tribunal received written witness statements from the following
witnesses:
On behalf of the claimant:
(a) The claimant, Nadine Clarkson, a fee paid judge of the First Tier
Tribunal.
(b) Antonina Murray Smith, a district judge.
(c) Samantha Mace, a fee paid judge in the First Tier Tribunal (IAC).
(d) District Tribunal Judge William Rolt of the First Tier Tribunal (SSCS).
(e) Helena Suffield-Thompson a fee paid judge in the First Tier Tribunal
(SSCS).
To continue reading
Request your trial